Polybius, Histories

Translation

Book 12 - Chapter 11

<w lemma="paresiw%2Fphsen">παρεσιώπησεν</w>; <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="sugkri%2Fseis">συγκρίσεις</w> <w lemma="poiou%2Fmenos">ποιούμενος</w> <w lemma="a%29ne%2Fkaqen">ἀνέκαθεν</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="e%29fo%2Frwn">ἐφόρων</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="basilei%3Ds">βασιλεῖς</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="%2Alakedai%2Fmoni">Λακεδαίμονι</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="a%29%2Frxontas">ἄρχοντας</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="%2A%29aqh%2Fnhsi">Ἀθήνησι</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="i%28erei%2Fas">ἱερείας</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29%2Fargei">Ἄργει</w> <w lemma="paraba%2Fllwn">παραβάλλων</w> <w lemma="pro%5Cs">πρὸς</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="o%29lumpioni%2Fkas">ὀλυμπιονίκας</w>, <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="a%28marti%2Fas">ἁμαρτίας</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="po%2Flewn">πόλεων</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="a%29nagrafa%5Cs">ἀναγραφὰς</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftwn">τούτων</w> <w lemma="e%29cele%2Fgxwn">ἐξελέγχων</w>, <w lemma="para%5C">παρὰ</w> <w lemma="tri%2Fmhnon">τρίμηνον</w> <w lemma="e%29xou%2Fsas">ἐχούσας</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="diafe%2Fron">διαφέρον</w>, <w lemma="ou%28%3Dto%2Fs">οὗτός</w> <w lemma="e%29sti">ἐστι</w>.

<w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="mh%5Cn">μὴν</w> <w lemma="o%28">ὁ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="o%29pisqodo%2Fmous">ὀπισθοδόμους</w> <w lemma="sth%2Flas">στήλας</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%5Cs">τὰς</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="tai%3Ds">ταῖς</w> <w lemma="fliai%3Ds">φλιαῖς</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="new%3Dn">νεῶν</w> <w lemma="proceni%2Fas">προξενίας</w> <w lemma="e%29ceurhkw%5Cs">ἐξευρηκὼς</w> <w lemma="%2Ati%2Fmaio%2Fs">Τίμαιός</w> <w lemma="e%29stin">ἐστιν</w>.

<w lemma="o%28%5Cn">ὃν</w> <w lemma="ou%29%2Fq%27">οὔθ᾽</w> <w lemma="u%28pa%2Frxon">ὑπάρχον</w> <w lemma="ti">τι</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="toiou%2Ftwn">τοιούτων</w> <w lemma="a%29gnoei%3Dn">ἀγνοεῖν</w> <w lemma="ou%29%2Fq%27">οὔθ᾽</w> <w lemma="eu%28ro%2Fnta">εὑρόντα</w> <w lemma="paralipei%3Dn">παραλιπεῖν</w> <w lemma="pisteute%2Fon">πιστευτέον</w> <w lemma="ou%29%2Fte">οὔτε</w> <w lemma="yeusame%2Fnw%7C">ψευσαμένῳ</w> <w lemma="suggnw%2Fmhn">συγγνώμην</w> <w lemma="dote%2Fon">δοτέον</w> <w lemma="ou%29damw%3Ds:">οὐδαμῶς·</w>

<w lemma="pikro%5Cs">πικρὸς</w> <w lemma="ga%5Cr">γὰρ</w> <w lemma="gegonw%5Cs">γεγονὼς</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="a%29parai%2Fthtos">ἀπαραίτητος</w> <w lemma="e%29pitimhth%5Cs">ἐπιτιμητὴς</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="pe%2Flas">πέλας</w> <w lemma="ei%29ko%2Ftws">εἰκότως</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="u%28po%5C">ὑπὸ</w> <w lemma="tw%3Dn">τῶν</w> <w lemma="plhsi%2Fon">πλησίον</w> <w lemma="au%29to%5Cs">αὐτὸς</w> <w lemma="a%29paraith%2Ftou">ἀπαραιτήτου</w> <w lemma="tugxa%2Fnoi">τυγχάνοι</w> <w lemma="kathgori%2Fas">κατηγορίας</w>. <w lemma="ou%29">οὐ</w> <w lemma="mh%5Cn">μὴν</w> <w lemma="a%29lla%5C">ἀλλὰ</w> <w lemma="profanw%3Ds">προφανῶς</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftois">τούτοις</w> <w lemma="e%29yeusme%2Fnos">ἐψευσμένος</w>,

<w lemma="metaba%5Cs">μεταβὰς</w> <w lemma="e%29pi%5C">ἐπὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%5Cs">τοὺς</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="%2A%29itali%2Fa%7C">Ἰταλίᾳ</w> <w lemma="%2Alokrou%5Cs">Λοκροὺς</w> <w lemma="prw%3Dton">πρῶτον</w> <w lemma="me%2Fn">μέν</w> <w lemma="fhsi">φησι</w> <w lemma="th%2Fn">τήν</w> <w lemma="te">τε</w> <w lemma="politei%2Fan">πολιτείαν</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="ta%5C">τὰ</w> <w lemma="loipa%5C">λοιπὰ</w> <w lemma="fila%2Fnqrwpa">φιλάνθρωπα</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="%2Alokroi%3Ds">Λοκροῖς</w> <w lemma="a%29mfote%2Frois">ἀμφοτέροις</w> ?<w lemma=""></w>* <w lemma="%2A%29aristote%2Flh">Ἀριστοτέλη</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Aqeo%2Ffraston">Θεόφραστον</w> <w lemma="kateyeu%3Dsqai">κατεψεῦσθαι</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="po%2Flews">πόλεως</w>.

<w lemma="e%29gw%5C">ἐγὼ</w> <w lemma="d%27">δ᾽</w> <w lemma="ou%29k">οὐκ</w> <w lemma="a%29gnow%3D">ἀγνοῶ</w> <w lemma="me%5Cn">μὲν</w> <w lemma="o%28%2Fti">ὅτι</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="tau%2Fth%7C">ταύτῃ</w> <w lemma="th%3Ds">τῆς</w> <w lemma="pragmatei%2Fas">πραγματείας</w> <w lemma="a%29nagkasqh%2Fsomai">ἀναγκασθήσομαι</w> <w lemma="parekbai%2Fnein">παρεκβαίνειν</w>, <w lemma="diorizo%2Fmenos">διοριζόμενος</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="diabebaiou%2Fmenos">διαβεβαιούμενος</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftwn:">τούτων·</w>

<w lemma="ou%29">οὐ</w> <w lemma="mh%5Cn">μὴν</w> <w lemma="a%29lla%5C">ἀλλὰ</w> <w lemma="dia%5C">διὰ</w> <w lemma="tau%2Fthn">ταύτην</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="ai%29ti%2Fan">αἰτίαν</w> <w lemma="ei%29s">εἰς</w> <w lemma="e%28%2Fna">ἕνα</w> <w lemma="to%2Fpon">τόπον</w> <w lemma="u%28pereqe%2Fmhn">ὑπερεθέμην</w> <w lemma="to%5Cn">τὸν</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="%2Atimai%2Fou">Τιμαίου</w> <w lemma="lo%2Fgon">λόγον</w>, <w lemma="i%28%2Fna">ἵνα</w> <w lemma="mh%5C">μὴ</w> <w lemma="polla%2Fkis">πολλάκις</w> <w lemma="a%29nagka%2Fzwmai">ἀναγκάζωμαι</w> <w lemma="tou%3D">τοῦ</w> <w lemma="kaqh%2Fkontos">καθήκοντος</w> <w lemma="o%29ligwrei%3Dn">ὀλιγωρεῖν</w>. —

<w lemma=""></w> <w lemma="%2A%28%2Foti">Ὅτι</w> <w lemma="%2Ati%2Fmaio%2Fs">Τίμαιός</w> <w lemma="fhsi">φησι</w> <w lemma="me%2Fgiston">μέγιστον</w> <w lemma="a%28ma%2Frthma">ἁμάρτημα</w> <w lemma="peri%5C">περὶ</w> <w lemma="th%5Cn">τὴν</w> <w lemma="i%28stori%2Fan">ἱστορίαν</w> <w lemma="ei%29%3Dnai">εἶναι</w> <w lemma="to%5C">τὸ</w> <w lemma="yeu%3Ddos:">ψεῦδος·</w> <w lemma="dio%5C">διὸ</w> <w lemma="kai%5C">καὶ</w> <w lemma="parainei%3D">παραινεῖ</w> <w lemma="tou%2Ftois">τούτοις</w>, <w lemma="ou%28%5Cs">οὓς</w> <w lemma="a%29%5Cn">ἂν</w> <w lemma="e%29cele%2Fgch%7C">ἐξελέγξῃ</w> <w lemma="dieyeusme%2Fnous">διεψευσμένους</w> <w lemma="e%29n">ἐν</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="suggra%2Fmmasin">συγγράμμασιν</w>, <w lemma="e%28%2Ftero%2Fn">ἕτερόν</w> <w lemma="ti">τι</w> <w lemma="zhtei%3Dn">ζητεῖν</w> <w lemma="o%29%2Fnoma">ὄνομα</w> <w lemma="toi%3Ds">τοῖς</w> <w lemma="bubli%2Fois">βυβλίοις</w>, <w lemma="pa%2Fnta">πάντα</w> <w lemma="de%5C">δὲ</w> <w lemma="ma%3Dllon">μᾶλλον</w> <w lemma="h%29%5C">ἢ</w> <w lemma="kalei%3Dn">καλεῖν</w> <w lemma="i%28stori%2Fan">ἱστορίαν</w>. —

For this is the author who compares the dates of the ephors with those of the kings in Lacedaemon from the earliest times, and the lists of Athenian archons and priestesses of Hera at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Argos&groupId=361&placeId=689">Argos</a> with those of the victors at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Olympia&groupId=809&placeId=1462">Olympia</a>, and who convicts cities of inaccuracy in these records, there being a difference of three months.

Yes, and it is Timaeus who discovered the inscriptions at the back of buildings and lists of proxeni on the jambs of temples.

We cannot then believe that he would have missed any such thing had it existed, or omitted to mention it had he found it, nor can we in any way excuse his mendacity.

Himself a most bitter and implacable critic of others he can but expect to meet with implacable criticism at the hands of others.

Next, having been obviously guilty of untruth in regard to this matter, he passes to the Italian Locrians and tells us in the first place that he found the constitution and general culture of both these Locrians and those in Greece to be the same, but that Aristotle and Theophrastus had falsely accused the Italian town.

I am quite aware that here too I shall be compelled to digress from my main subject, in order to put my case more directly and further fortify it,

but as a fact I deferred to one place my discussion of Timaeus just because I do not wish to be obliged frequently to neglect my main task. . . . Timaeus says that the worst vice of history is falsehood.

So he advises those whom he convicts of falsehood in their works to find another name for their book and call it anything but history. . . .

Walbank Commentary

Overview

12.4.0 - 12.16.0

Timaeus' criticisms of Aristotle about Locri: his criticisms of Callisthenes, Demochares, and Agathocles <emph rend="bold">P.</emph> now passes to a discussion of Timaeus' criticisms of his predecessors (cf. 23. 8) and the polemic about Locri forms part of this section (cf. Pdech, p. xviii). On the view that Timaeus' opinions about Locri furnished the occasion for P. to devote this book to criticism of him see the introductory note, above, p. 317. Aristotle's account of the origins of Epizephyrian Locri was probably contained in his Constitutions, which may well have dealt with foundations too, for Plutarch (Mor. 1093 C) refers to them as <w lang="el-GR">κτίσεις καὶ πολιτεῖαι</w> (cf. Sandys, Aristotle's Constitution of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Athens&groupId=379&placeId=715">Athens</a> <emph rend="superscript">2</emph> (London, 1912), xxix). In 11. 5 P. implies that Theophrastus shared Aristotle's account perhaps in his three books <w lang="el-GR">Νομοθετῶν</w> (Diog. Laert. v. 45), which seem to have touched on Zaleucus (cf. Cic. de leg. ii. 15; ad Att. vi. 1. 18), or alternatively in his twenty-four books <w lang="el-GR">Νόμων κατὰ στοιχεῖον</w> (Diog. Laert. v. 44; Cic. fin. v. 11); and indeed in his treatise On Drunkenness Theophrastus mentioned Zaleucus' law punishing the drinking of wine without a doctor's prescription by death (Theophr. fg. 117 Wimmer = Athen. x. 429). The reference is, however, merely to Timaeus' rejection of Theophrastus and there is no positive evidence that P. was personally familiar with his account. All that P. quotes from Aristotle too (at least in surviving fragments) comes via Timaeus' criticism, and it is possible, despite 9. 1, that P. merely took Aristotle's version from Timaeus and what he was told himself at Locri (cf. von Scala, 127; Ziegler, RE, 'Polybios (1)', col. 1470; Brown, 127 n. 7, correctly observes, however, that this can be only a hypothesis). Timaeus' criticism of Aristotle was in his ninth book (FGH, 566 F 11) and this digression arose either in connexion with Pythagoras or else out of his account of the history of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Magna Graecia&groupId=728&placeId=1334">Magna Graecia</a> in the sixth century (so Jacoby, commentary on FGH, 566 F 11–12); Schwartz (Hermes, 1899, 484) argued that as the Locrian laws were usually attributed to Zaleucus (16. 4 n.), who was accounted a Pythagorean, Timaeus, who rejected Zaleucus' existence (FGH, 566 F 130), may well have passed from discussing this question in connexion with Zaleucus to a general account of early Locrian history, and this is possible (cf. Laqueur, RE, 'Timaios (2)', col. 1078). Aristotle's acceptance of the story that Italian Locri was founded by slaves from Locris with whom free-born women had cohabited during their <milestone unit="page" n="330">[330]</milestone> husbands' absence as allies of the Spartans during the Messenian War (cf. 6 b 5 n.) is rejected by Timaeus on eight grounds: <table cols="3" rows="8"> <row> <cell>(i)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the Locrians were not wont to have domestic slaves (6. 7–8);</cell> </row> <row> <cell>(ii)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the inherited friendship of Locri with <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sparta&groupId=660&placeId=1208">Sparta</a> (6 a 2);</cell> </row> <row> <cell>(iii)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the ravaging of Locri by the Athenians (6 b 3);</cell> </row> <row> <cell>(iv)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the Spartans would hardly have stopped the Locrians of Greece from visiting their wives during the Messenian War 6 b 5);</cell> </row> <row> <cell>(v)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the existence of a treaty between Greek Locris and Italian Locri <w lang="el-GR">ὡς γονεῦσι πρὸς τέκνα</w> (9. 3);</cell> </row> <row> <cell>(vi)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the existence of sympolity between the two states (9. 4);</cell> </row> <row> <cell>(vii)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the laws of Locri were those of a colony of free men (9. 5);</cell> </row> <row> <cell>(viii)</cell> <cell /> <cell>the constitution of Locri and its cultural institutions are similar to those of Locris (11. 5).</cell> </row> </table> P.'s answers to these arguments are partly but not wholly valid; they are discussed in the notes (see also Walbank, JRS, 1962, 1–12). They fall into two groups: those based on personal inquiry at Locri (5–6. 6), and those based on probability (6. 7–11. 5). But as between the views of Aristotle and Timaeus, the latter seem to be the more convincing. The story of the slave origins of Locri parallels the similar story of the Partheniae at Tarentum (viii. 33. 9 n.); it seems to be implied in the version which made Locri also a Spartan foundation (Paus. iii. 3. 1). It probably arose in an attempt to explain the matrilineal customs of Locri (5. 6 n.) and may have been given additional prominence in democratic propaganda during the party struggles at the time of Dionysius II (Arist. Pol. vii (v). 7. 1307 a 38, <w lang="el-GR">ἡ Λοκρῶν πόλις ἀπώλετο ἐκ τῆς πρὸς Διονύσιον κηδείας)</w>, which sought to bring the 'Hundred Houses' (5. 6) into disrepute (so Oldfather, RE, 'Lokroi', col. 1315). Timaeus' rejection of it would be explained if he drew some of his information about Locri from a Locrian migr, Echecrates (10. 7 n.). Other points at issue between Aristotle and Timaeus are discussed in the notes. See in general Oldfather, RE, '<a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Lokris&groupId=696&placeId=1275">Lokris</a>', cols. 1255–62; 'Lokroi', cols. 1314–15, 1345–6; Dunbabin, 36–37, 183–5; Brown, 44–50; Brard, 201–6; Jacoby on FGH, 566 F 11–12; Lerat, ii. 22–25; Walbank, JRS, 1962, 1–12. On the origins of the inhabitants of Locri see S. Pembroke, Annales, 1970, 1240–70. He relates the view of Aristotle, followed by P., to the tradition preserved in Schol. Dion. Per. 366 (GGM, ii. 445 l. 30) that the slaves had sexual relations with their mistresses and fled with them to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Italy&groupId=656&placeId=1199">Italy</a> when their masters returned; and he applies the statement that nobility was reckoned <w lang="el-GR">ἀπὸ τῶν γυναικῶν</w> only to the first generation (after which descent in Locri was reckoned as it was anywhere else). This view depends on the assumption that the story of the adulterous wives was true; in the commentary I assumed that it was devised to explain matrilineal vestiges surviving at Locri. The tradition is also discussed by Christiane SourvinouInwood, CQ, 1974, 186–98, who points out that the attribution of the foundation-legend of Locri to democratic propaganda directed against the Hundred Families is open to the objection that it would be equally discreditable to the democrats (but presumably birth was less important to them). Associating it closely with the legend of Tarentum, she regards it as reflecting a period of intimate relations between Tarentum and Locri, probably in the sixth century. Both accounts she regards as legendary and as expressions of a 'reversed world', in which normal relationships are inverted (so that women and slaves play the major roles) but subsequently give way to order and a return to normal conditions; the story would thus reflect a non-rational, mythopoeic structure of thought.

12.11.1 - 12.11.1

Timaeus' chronological work: cf. 10. 4. Magistrates, kings, and priests were used for dating both in official lists and by historians, and of these the Spartan eponymous ephor, the Athenian eponymous archon and the years of the priestess of Hera at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Argos&groupId=361&placeId=689">Argos</a>, were among the best known; cf. Thuc. ii. 2. 1, <w lang="el-GR">τῷ δὲ πέμπτῳ καὶ δεκάτῳ ἔτει, ἐπὶ Χρυσίδος ἐν Ἄργει τότε πεντήκοντα δυοῖν δέοντα ἔτη ἱερωμένης καὶ Αἰνησίου ἐφόρου ἐν Σπάρτῃ καὶ Πυθοδώρου ἔτι δύο [τέσσαρας</w> Krger) <w lang="el-GR">μῆνας ἄρχοντος Ἀθηναίοις</w> . . . . For <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Sparta&groupId=660&placeId=1208">Sparta</a> regnal years offered an alternative to dating by ephors, and this was later more popular (cf. Gomme on Thuc. ii. 2. 1); nor will dating by ephors have preceded the growth in the importance of that office in the mid-sixth century (cf. Jacoby, Atthis, 305 n. 24). The Athenian archon list was published on stone c. 425 (Meritt, Hesp. 1939, 59 ff. = Agora Inv. no. I4120; Jacoby, Atthis, 171–4), and a little before 400 Hellanicus used it as the chronological foundation of his Atthis (Jacoby, FGH, 323 a, commentary in FGH, iii b (Supplement), vol. 1, 1 ff.). As Gomme observes (on Thuc. ii. 2. 1), it may have been available earlier. For the disadvantages inherent in even a composite form of reckoning by magistrates and the like, see Thuc. v. 20. 2–3. Hellanicus also published a work entitled <w lang="el-GR">Ἱέρειαι τῆς Ἥρας αἱ ἐν Ἄργει</w>, a universal chronicle using the Argive priestesses as a chronological basis (FGH, 4 F 74–84) 'in the same manner as later writers used the list of Olympic victors' (Jacoby, Atthis, 357 n. 24); Plutarch (Mor. 1132 A) mentions an <w lang="el-GR">ἀπογραφὴ ἡ ἐν Σικυῶνι ἀποκειμένη</w> used by Heracleides Ponticus, which contains lists of Argive priestesses, poets, and musicians. The list of Olympionicae was first edited by Hippias of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Elis&groupId=560&placeId=1048">Elis</a> (FGH, 6 F 2 = Plut. Num. 1. 4) in the fifth century; Plutarch regards it as unreliable. This was no doubt used by Timaeus as well as by other writers of <w lang="el-GR">Ὀλυμπιονῖκαι</w> such as Aristotle (Diog. Laert. v. 1. 26, viii. 51 = FGH, 241 F 7), Eratosthenes (FGH, 241 F 4–8), and Philochorus, who wrote <w lang="el-GR">Ὀλυμπιάδες</w> (FGH, 328, commentary on §§ 4–5 in III b (Suppl.), vol. 1, pp. 351–2). For general problems connected with the list of Olympionicae see Jacoby's commentary in FGH III b, § xviii, pp. 221–8, 233–6. Timaeus' precise contribution cannot be clearly ascertained owing to the ambiguity of the present sentence, which can be variously punctuated, with commas (i) after <milestone unit="page" n="347">[347]</milestone> <w lang="el-GR">Λακεδαίμονι</w> and <w lang="el-GR">ὀλυμπιονίκας</w>, (ii) after <w lang="el-GR">Ἀθήνησι</w> and <w lang="el-GR">ὀλυμπιονίκας</w>, (iii) after <w lang="el-GR">Ἄργει</w> and <w lang="el-GR">ὀλυμπιονίκας</w>. The first punctuation is that usually adopted (cf. Laqueur, RE, 'Timaios (1)', col. 1199; Paton, Shuckburgh; and Schweighaeuser); it implies that Timaeus drew up one table correlating the Spartan kings and ephors, and another correlating Athenian archons, Argive priestesses, and Olympic victors. The second punctuation (cf. Jacoby, FGH, 566 T 10; Atthis, 126) assumes that Timaeus' first table related the Spartan ephors to the Spartan kings and Athenian archons, and the second the Argive priestesses to the Olympic victors. The third assumes a single comprehensive chronological system in which all four lists, Spartan ephors, Spartan kings, Athenian archons, and Argive priestesses are correlated and compared with the Olympionicae; the object of <w lang="el-GR">παραβάλλων</w> must then be understood from what has preceded (cf. D. W. Prakken, Studies in Greek Genealogical Chronology (Lancaster, Pa., 1943), 56 n. 21, envisaging this interpretation). According to Suidas, Timaeus wrote <w lang="el-GR">Ὀλυμπιονίκας ἤ?τοι Χρονικὰ Πραξιδικά</w> (FGH, 566 T 1), a work which seems to be referred to here; it was perhaps a kind of handbook, serving as a chronological preparation for Timaeus' general history, much as Callisthenes' work on the Pythian victors served as a preparation for his history of the Phocian War (Syll. 275 = FGH, 124 T 23; Brown, 10). Whether or no Timaeus based his list on research carried out at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Olympia&groupId=809&placeId=1462">Olympia</a> we cannot tell (Brown, 12 n. 69, quoting Pausanias' reference to a list of Olympic victors set up in the gymnasium, probably about 550/540 B.C.: Paus. vi. 6. 3 = FGH, 416 T 1). But his compilation seems clearly to have made a substantial contribution to the problem of reconciling different chronologies, and his use of Olympiad years in his History is followed by P. himself (cf. Vol. I, p. 35 n. 6). <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὰς ἁμαρτίας τῶν πόλεων . . . ἐξελέγχων</w>:</emph> whether <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Athens&groupId=379&placeId=715">Athens</a> and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Argos&groupId=361&placeId=689">Argos</a>, or cities generally, is not clear; in the second case <w lang="el-GR">τὰς τούτων</w> will be 'records of these matters', i.e. chronological matters in general. The mention of three months suggests a specific instance, but what it was is not known. In Thuc. ii. 2. 1, quoted at the beginning of the preceding note, the remainder of Pythodorus' archonship is given as two months, though it was in fact four, <w lang="el-GR">παρὰ τρίμηνον ἐχούσας τὸ διαφέρον</w> by inclusive reckoning; some editors accept Krger's <w lang="el-GR">τέσσαρας</w>. Timaeus will not have this passage in mind; but it well illustrates the kind of error he is thinking of. Pdech, ad loc., suggests that the reference is to local chronicles and chronological tables like the Parian Marble (FGH, 239) and the Lindian Chronicle (FGH, 532); if in such tables there was an error of three months in the recording of some event, it might in consequence be placed under a different eponym and so in a different year. <milestone unit="page" n="348">[348]</milestone>

Specifics

12.11.2 - 12.11.2

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὰς ὀπισθοδόμους στήλας</w>:</emph> <w lang="el-GR">ὀπισθοδομίους</w> Reiske, <w lang="el-GR">ὀπισθογράφους</w>? Wilamowitz (Arist. u. Athen, i. 306 n. 24), <w lang="el-GR">τὰς</w> 〈 <w lang="el-GR">κατὰ τοὺς</w>〉 <w lang="el-GR">ὀπισθοδόμους στήλας</w> Diels (Hermes, 1900, 200). P. means 'inscriptions on the backs of buildings' or, more probably, 'inscriptions in the inner cellae of temples'; for <w lang="el-GR">ὀπισθόδομος</w>, elsewhere found only as a noun, is the inner cella (often of the old temple of Athene at <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Athens&groupId=379&placeId=715">Athens</a>, used as the Treasury). <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἐν ταῖς φλιαῖς τῶν νεῶν</w>:</emph> 'on the doorposts of temples'; cf. IG, xii. 3. 170, l. 24, <w lang="el-GR">τὸ δέ ψάφισμα . . . ἀναγράψαι ἐς τὰν φλιάν</w> (from Astypalaea); ibid. xii. 7. 237, l. 50 (Amorgos). For the Attic form <w lang="el-GR">νεῶν</w> cf. xv. 29. 8. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τὰς . . . προξενίας</w>:</emph> grants of proxenia, the right to represent the state making the grant in one's own state; such proxenoi were originally not citizens of the state they represented, but during the Hellenistic age grants of proxenia and honorary citizenship were made together (cf. C. Phillipson, The International Law and Custom of Ancient Greece and <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Rome&groupId=935&placeId=1669">Rome</a> (London, 1911) i. 147 ff.; J. A. O. Larsen, OCD, 'proxenos').

12.11.3 - 12.11.3

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">οὐθ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">εὑρόντα παραλιπεῖν</w>:</emph> but Timaeus did claim to have found it, and he did mention it (cf. 9. 3); hence P.'s polemic and argument are irrational. Timaeus had merely failed to specify which Locris he visited. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ψευσαμένῳ</w>:</emph> cf. 10. 6 n.

12.11.4 - 12.11.4

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">πικρὸς . . . καὶ ἀπαραίτητος ἐπιτιμητής</w>:</emph> cf. 4 a 1, 6. This charge against Timaeus is common and led to his nickname 'Epitimaeus', given him by Istros (FGH, 334 F 59 = Athen. vi. 272 B); see Diod. v. 1. 3 (FGH, 566 T 11); Plut. Nic. 1 (FGH, 566 T 18); Nepos, Alcib. 11. 1 (FGH, 566 F 99); Strabo, xiv. 640, quoting the criticism of Artemidorus (FGH, 566 F 150 b). P. clearly hints at the nickname here. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀπαραιτήτου . . . κατηγορίας</w>:</emph> cf. 7. 6.

12.11.5 - 12.11.5

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">μεταβὰς επὶ τοὺς ἐν Ἰταλίᾳ Λοκρούς</w>:</emph> cf. 9. 5 n. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τήν τε πολιτείαν καὶ τὰ λοιπὰ φιλάνθρωπα κτλ</w>.:</emph> cf. Syll. 502, l. 20. The existence of a lacuna after <w lang="el-GR">ἀμφοτέροις</w> and uncertainty about its length help to make the meaning of these words doubtful. If the lacuna is filled by some such phrase as <w lang="el-GR">ὑπάρχειν ὅμοια, τὸν δ</w>f (Hultsch) or <w lang="el-GR">εὑρηκέναι παρόμοια, τὸν δ</w>f (Bttner-Wobst), the meaning will be 'the constitution and general culture' (Paton); for <w lang="el-GR">τὰ φιλάνθρωπα</w> in the sense of <w lang="el-GR">φιλανθρωπία</w>, 'humane behaviour, civilized practices', cf. x. 38. 3. In this case P. is retailing Timaeus' rebuttal of the accusations made against the Italian Locrians in 9. 5. But <w lang="el-GR">πολιτείαν</w> may refer to the <w lang="el-GR">ἰσοπολιτεία</w> existing between Locri and its mother country (cf. 9. 4, <w lang="el-GR">καθ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἃ πολιτείαν ὑπάρχειν ἐκατέροις παρ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἐκατέροις)</w> with <w lang="el-GR">ἀμφοτέροις</w> taking up the sense of <w lang="el-GR">ἐκατέροις παρ</w>f <w lang="el-GR">ἐκατέροις</w>; in that case <w lang="el-GR">τὰ φιλά</w>S<w lang="el-GR">νθρωπα</w> are the exchange of privileges and <milestone unit="page" n="349">[349]</milestone> concessions granted between the two peoples (cf. 5. 3 n. for this sense, common in inscriptions). The lacuna could then be filled with <w lang="el-GR">ὑπάρχειν, τὸν δ</w>f, giving the sense: 'he says that common citizenship and similar mutual concessions exist between the two sets of Locrians, and that . . .'; but logically <w lang="el-GR">πρῶτον μέν</w> requires some corresponding phrase, and the lacuna may in fact be longer. Schweighaeuser favours the second meaning, but is surely wrong in interpreting <w lang="el-GR">ἀμφοτέροις</w> de utrisque Graeciae Locris; for P.'s whole point is that Timaeus never adverts to the difficulty raised by the existence of the two Locrian states in Greece. <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοῖς Λοκροῖς ἀμφοτέροις</w>:</emph> those of Greece and those of <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Italy&groupId=656&placeId=1199">Italy</a> (see the preceding note). <emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">Ἀριστοτέλη καὶ Θεόφραστον</w>:</emph> for the version of Aristotle and Theophrastus see above, 5–16 n. <w lang="el-GR">τῆς πόλεως</w> is of course the Italian city.

12.11.6 - 12.11.6

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">ἀναγκασθήσομαι παρεκβαίνειν</w>:</emph> despite the suggestion in 7. 2 that the discussion was at an end, and despite the subsequent polemic (7. 2–11. 5), P. now proposes to develop his attack on Timaeus still further in order to clarify and strengthen his case <w lang="el-GR">(διοριζόμενος καὶ διαβεβαιούμενος)</w>, viz. that Timaeus is a dishonest and unreliable historian; for his case for accepting Aristotle against Timaeus on the subject of Locri turns on his success in this.

12.11.7 - 12.11.7

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">τοῦ καθήκοντος ὀλιγωρεῖν</w>:</emph> and so fall into Timaeus' own error; cf. 7. 1 <w lang="el-GR">πολύ τι τοῦ καθήκοντος παρεκβαίνει</w>. P., however, admits a place for the <w lang="el-GR">παρέκβασις</w>; cf. i. 15. 13, ii. 36. 1, iii. 2. 7, 9. 6, 33. 1, iv. 9. 1, v. 13. 1, vi. 50. 1, xii. 28. 10.

12.11.8 - 12.11.8

<emph rend="bold"><w lang="el-GR">μέγιστον ἁμάρτημα . . . τὸ ψεῦδος</w>:</emph> for the commonplace, to which P. subscribes, cf. Vol. I, pp. 10 ff.; Avenarius, 40–46. The present fragment seems related to the argument in 12. 1–4, where presumably Timaeus' remarks were directed against Aristotle.

Addenda & corrigenda

12.5.0 - 12.16.0

on the origins of the inhabitants of Locri see S. Pembroke, Annales, 1970, 1240–70. He relates the view of Aristotle, followed by P., to the tradition preserved in Schol. Dion. Per. 366 (GGM, ii. 445 l. 30) that the slaves had sexual relations with their mistresses and fled with them to <a class="linkToPlace" target="_blank" href="/place?placename=Italy&groupId=656&placeId=1199">Italy</a> when their masters returned; and he applies the statement that nobility was reckoned <w lang="el-GR">ἀπὸ τῶν γυναικῶν</w> only to the first generation (after which descent in Locri was reckoned as it was anywhere else). This view depends on the assumption that the story of the adulterous wives was true; in the commentary I assumed that it was devised to explain matrilineal vestiges surviving at Locri. The tradition is also discussed by Christiane SourvinouInwood, CQ, 1974, 186–98, who points out that the attribution of the foundation-legend of Locri to democratic propaganda directed against the Hundred Families is open to the objection that it would be equally discreditable to the democrats (but presumably birth was less important to them). Associating it closely with the legend of Tarentum, she regards it as reflecting a period of intimate relations between Tarentum and Locri, probably in the sixth century. Both accounts she regards as legendary and as expressions of a 'reversed world', in which normal relationships are inverted (so that women and slaves play the major roles) but subsequently give way to order and a return to normal conditions; the story would thus reflect a non-rational, mythopoeic structure of thought.

Polybius, Histories

Bibliography

Archaeology

Places

Walbank Commentary

Commentary